View Poll Results: Are spy/assassinatin drones morally acceptable?

Voters
86. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    29 33.72%
  • No

    34 39.53%
  • Yes, with explanation

    20 23.26%
  • No or undecided with explanation

    3 3.49%
Page 31 of 34 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 331

Thread: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

  1. #301
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I don't think that is what is being debated.
    On the contrary, this is precisely what people have come in here to argue. We've had fools claiming that special forces raids are the end-all-be-all way to fix collateral damage concerns ; as though invading other countries, landing armed forces there, shooting up the place, and then extracting them didn't come with it's own host of problems (to include collateral damage).

    Drone Strikes do save lives, they do allow us to engage in the enemy in ways that minimize friendly and civilian casualties, and they are effective at not allowing the enemy to continue to launch attacks from a position of safety.

    Which, again, is why even Barack Obama has expanded their mission.

  2. #302
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I cited earlier, with the person I was talking to, exactly what I was speaking to.

    Yes, we could have been quieter, and I said how:

    1. Don't invade countries.

    2. Don't declare war on small groups.
    oh, that's all? Well gosh, let's just un-declare war on Al-Qaeda, and then we can happily assume that non-state networks will never again declare war on us

    3. Don't bomb from a distance and make noise by killing civilians.
    Would you prefer we bomb up close and kill civilians silently?

    Civilians have died in every war fought since the beginning of mankind. It's part of the conflict. If you encourage the enemy to use human shields, well, this enemy will, and the result will be more dead civilians, not less. Similarly, aerial bombardent has been part of warfare since the early 20th Century. What is unique about our capabilities now is our ability to reduce civilian casualties, not the degree to which we produce more of them.

  3. #303
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-21-13 @ 06:06 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    18

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    I believe drones are okay but a lot more most be done to avoid civilian casualties on foreign soil

  4. #304
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    On the contrary, this is precisely what people have come in here to argue. We've had fools claiming that special forces raids are the end-all-be-all way to fix collateral damage concerns ; as though invading other countries, landing armed forces there, shooting up the place, and then extracting them didn't come with it's own host of problems (to include collateral damage).

    Drone Strikes do save lives, they do allow us to engage in the enemy in ways that minimize friendly and civilian casualties, and they are effective at not allowing the enemy to continue to launch attacks from a position of safety.

    Which, again, is why even Barack Obama has expanded their mission.
    No, while I don't speak for everyone, what Sherman noted is not what we're debating. Obama like his bush before him is mistaken. We do not need to bomb civilian populations in a country we are not at war with to save lives. In the long run, we are likely costing more lives than saving them.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #305
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    oh, that's all? Well gosh, let's just un-declare war on Al-Qaeda, and then we can happily assume that non-state networks will never again declare war on us
    Should have never declared it in the first place. It was an idiot move. Elevated their status and added to their rolls far more than any other action would have done.


    Would you prefer we bomb up close and kill civilians silently?

    Civilians have died in every war fought since the beginning of mankind. It's part of the conflict. If you encourage the enemy to use human shields, well, this enemy will, and the result will be more dead civilians, not less. Similarly, aerial bombardent has been part of warfare since the early 20th Century. What is unique about our capabilities now is our ability to reduce civilian casualties, not the degree to which we produce more of them.
    Being silly doesn't promote the discourse CP.

    We're not at war with any country. there is no government to surrender, no number you can bomb that ends this. It is a mistaken ideology that keeps us on the wrong path. That is why you are misguided on the nature of this discussion. You see it in the context of a war, in a way that only works when one country is at war with another. This plan will fail in the end. terrorism is no more weakened today than it was in 2003. They just have us closer and easier to mess with.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #306
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    This discussion is, when you break it down to basics, whether government sanctioned assassination is morally correct or not.

    Assassination is a cowards way out. It has been considered abhorrent since the dawn of time in most societies. As the most advanced culture in history (theoretically) ... We should be above that.

    For our Government to be so adamantly opposed to torture but fully embracing assassination, is the epitome of hypocrisy.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  7. #307
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Should have never declared it in the first place. It was an idiot move. Elevated their status and added to their rolls far more than any other action would have done.
    whether or not we officially declare war on anyone is immaterial to whether or not they declare war on us, Boo. And having the President announce that we were going to crush Al-Qaeda and like networks immediately after 9/11 was indeed the right decision to make. I realize now you wish you could twinkle your nose and make it all go away, but reality has an unfortunate way of not letting you do that.

    Being silly doesn't promote the discourse CP.
    foolish descriptions receive foolish replies.

    We're not at war with any country. there is no government to surrender, no number you can bomb that ends this. It is a mistaken ideology that keeps us on the wrong path. That is why you are misguided on the nature of this discussion. You see it in the context of a war, in a way that only works when one country is at war with another. This plan will fail in the end. terrorism is no more weakened today than it was in 2003. They just have us closer and easier to mess with.
    1. "terrorism", as you kept reminding me, is a tactic, not a network. Al-Qaeda trunk organization is not stronger now than they were in 2003.

    2. war requires the mutual consent of both parties to end. It doesn't end when one side either get's bored or decides that maybe the whole thing is just pointless.

    3. the history of human warfare is not contained solely within the relatively small number of conflicts between Westphalian nation-states. If anything the United States has fought more counter-insurgency counter-network wars than it has anti-state operations. You don't even have a philosophy of war that would allow you to critique the so-called "mistaken ideology" of this one. You just know that war against a nation state would be "easier" because our military has a greater relative advantage in linear symmetric kinetic engagements (though I don't think you would have the organic ability to describe it that way). That is why you blather on in bland statements but try to change the subject when challenged on the specifics.

  8. #308
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No, while I don't speak for everyone, what Sherman noted is not what we're debating. Obama like his bush before him is mistaken. We do not need to bomb civilian populations in a country we are not at war with to save lives
    That is correct, and if anyone was doing that, I would stand 100% in opposition to them. Bombing active members of enemy networks who are taking refuge in other countries in order to avoid targeting, however, is a good idea and does save lives.

    In the long run, we are likely costing more lives than saving them.
    that is not a judgement that you are qualified to make.

  9. #309
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    We're not at war with any country. there is no government to surrender, no number you can bomb that ends this. It is a mistaken ideology that keeps us on the wrong path. That is why you are misguided on the nature of this discussion. You see it in the context of a war, in a way that only works when one country is at war with another. This plan will fail in the end. terrorism is no more weakened today than it was in 2003. They just have us closer and easier to mess with.
    It's true we are not at war with a country, but we most definitely are at war with individual groups. Groups, being composed of humans, must reside somewhere. Ultimately that means they must reside in one or more countries. These groups make war upon the citizens and the interests of the US through the use of violence, but what you are saying (whether intended or not) is that we may not retaliate against these groups with violence because we have not declared war upon a country. Your approach denies the US any right whatsoever to attack those who attack the US. We will not declare war against Pakistan because we have no reason to declare war on Pakistan; we only fight specific groups hiding in that country. The alternative you are apparently proposing is to dumbly decide our hands are tied without a declaration of war and wait until terrorists are strong enough to return to America. Perhaps they are as clever as you would like the US to be, and they will kill 3000 more Americans, "quietly" at least. We'll all feel better about that, I'm sure. Seems to me, this plan is far more likely to fail than anything involving drones.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  10. #310
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    whether or not we officially declare war on anyone is immaterial to whether or not they declare war on us, Boo. And having the President announce that we were going to crush Al-Qaeda and like networks immediately after 9/11 was indeed the right decision to make. I realize now you wish you could twinkle your nose and make it all go away, but reality has an unfortunate way of not letting you do that.



    foolish descriptions receive foolish replies.



    1. "terrorism", as you kept reminding me, is a tactic, not a network. Al-Qaeda trunk organization is not stronger now than they were in 2003.

    2. war requires the mutual consent of both parties to end. It doesn't end when one side either get's bored or decides that maybe the whole thing is just pointless.

    3. the history of human warfare is not contained solely within the relatively small number of conflicts between Westphalian nation-states. If anything the United States has fought more counter-insurgency counter-network wars than it has anti-state operations. You don't even have a philosophy of war that would allow you to critique the so-called "mistaken ideology" of this one. You just know that war against a nation state would be "easier" because our military has a greater relative advantage in linear symmetric kinetic engagements (though I don't think you would have the organic ability to describe it that way). That is why you blather on in bland statements but try to change the subject when challenged on the specifics.
    Actually it is cp. When an insect declares war on you, you don't treat it like it is king of the jungle. You swat it like an insect. When it treat the insect like lord of the jungle, you elevate it. And when you treat insect terrorist groups like they warrant he same respect as a nation, you elevate their status. They're insects, treat them accordingly.

    Al Qeada doesn't have to be stronger. The people practicing that tactic are in no less supply. Nor is there any one who can surrender, another point that highlights the seeing it as a war foolishness, nor are we talking about much that has anything to do with warfare. We have a relatively small group making us pay heavily for small gains, counting on us to keep fighting foolishly.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 31 of 34 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •